Here.
Briefs are here.
H/T Indianz.
fee to trust
Intertribal Fight in Michigan over Little River Off-Rez Casino Proposal
From the K’zoo Gazette via Pechanga:
FRUITPORT TOWNSHIP — A top official of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is lashing back at other Indian tribes, accusing them of delaying a proposed Fruitport Township casino to choke off potential competition for their casinos.
“We understand other casino interests do not want competition, but don’t delay jobs for the Muskegon region. Don’t delay revenues to the state School Aid Fund,” said Robert Memberto, commerce director for the Little River Band, which wants to build a casino at the former Great Lakes Downs race track.
He accused the other tribes of “throwing all kinds of minutiae to delay, delay and delay this project.”
Memberto delivered his plea last week to the House Regulatory Reform Committee in Lansing, which is deciding on a resolution that would pave the way for a Fruitport Township casino.
Leaders from three other tribes — the Gun Lake Tribe, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi — testified against the Little River Band proposal. They claimed that state approval of a casino in Fruitport Township would break an agreement that tribes in Michigan would not pursue off-reservation gambling unless all the tribes agreed. They also suggested that the authority of taking land into trust for off-reservation casinos rests with the U.S. Department of Interior, not state leadership.
DOI Letter re: Little River Band Off-Reservation Gaming Application
Interesting reading: Bert Johnson from Paula Hart — Compact Letter 6.16.10.
Indian Gaming Applications Memorandum
While it’s not the memorandum floating around the Michigan state capitol from Interior to Rep. Bert Johnson regarding the Little River request, this press release and memorandum were released yesterday by Interior. (h/t Indianz).
Charles Mix County Challenge to Yankton Travel Plaza Trust Acquisition
Here is the complaint in County of Charles Mix v. U.S. Dept. of Interior (D. S.D.): Charles Mix County v. DOI Complaint
Patchak Reply Brief Filed
Here: Patchak v Salazar Appellants Reply Brief 5-25-2010
Other briefs here.
Opening Briefs in First Major Post-Carcieri Challenge to Fee to Trust–Updated
The case is Patchak v. Salazar (D.C. Cir.) and involves the DOI’s taking of land into trust for the Gun Lake Band of Pottawatomi Indians. The land already is in trust.
Here are the opening briefs:
2010-04-09 Patchak Opening Brief
2010-05-10 Gun Lake Answer Brief (Filed)
02 Proposed Brief Amicus Curiae–NCAI
Lower court materials are here.
Update on Tohono O’odham Nation Suit re: Off-Reservation Fee to Trust
Previous post with complaint here. The Gila River Indian Community has attempted to intervene in opposition to TON’s off-rez fee to trust application/suit.
Updated materials here:
DCT Order Denying Motion to Transfer
USA Response to TON Motion for Summary Judgment
City of Glendale Motion for Summary Judgment
Gila River Motion to Intervene
Gila River Proposed Opposition to TON Motion for Summary Judgment
Menominee Challenge to Off-Reservation Fee to Trust Denial Update
Not much going on, Menominee Tribe v. DOI is progressing:
Menominee Motion to Consider Extrinsic Evidence
Why the Oneida Foreclosure Case Will Not Go to the Supreme Court
Despite much speculation at Indianz, and grandstanding by Judge Cabranes and the anti-tribal parties, it seems very unlikely the Supreme Court will agree to grant a petition for cert in Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County. To be sure, the question whether tribal sovereign immunity can prevent foreclosure actions against tribally-owned fee lands is certworthy, and there may already be a split in authority of sorts (the Second Circuit and the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court in a case involving the Aquinnah Wampanoag a few years back), but the Oneida case doesn’t seem to be the vehicle.
In short, this case is all but moot. And the Second Circuit nearly passed on the underlying question because the land in question may soon go into trust (perhaps after a few years litigation). Consider part of the early portion of the majority opinion in OIN v. Madison County:
Since this Court heard oral argument in this matter, there have been several developments that affect the practical implications of this Court’s decision on Madison and Oneida Counties. While these developments do not render moot any of the issues before this Court on appeal, we think it useful to describe them briefly.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.